Yes, yes it is interesting that a whole bunch of people can be taken in by what turns out to be a relatively obvious hoax, and that the act of debunking it was fraught with peril because questioning methodology in modern "political science" (as in "climate science") is not encouraged. We pretty much knew that.

What I wasn't really thinking about -- although it is pretty obvious once you think about it, is that our modern university Political Science departments are more like some Goebbelesque genetically mutated bastard child of marketing and psychology.

The 2014 election also helped focus Broockman and Kalla’s research agenda. They were convinced canvassing worked — at least to a point — and that politicians weren’t capitalizing on this fact nearly enough. After the election, they co-authored a November 2014 piece in Vox arguing as much. The pair wrote that “research has consistently found that authentic interpersonal exchanges usually have sizable impacts,” linking to a positive preelection Bloomberg Politics cover story about LaCour and Green’s research.

See, why just STUDY how people think politically when you can take action to CHANGE how they think politically! Obviously to your own inherently superior "progressive" agenda!

One can't be too "careful" ... thus we have this little $585K grant to the University of Michigan to study the "social media use of RIGHT WING organizations"! They didn't say if "right wing organization" in these days and times was going to be the Republican Party or just the Blue Dog Democrats, but one has to keep a close eye on such crazy thinkers!